Valentine et al v. Monahan et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:22-cv-02446-JKB Document107 Filed 02/24/26 Pagelof5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

JAZMIN VALENTINE, et al., *
| Plaintiffs, ; *
v. , oe | CIVIL NO. JKB-22-2446
NURSE B. MONAHAN, et al., *
Defendants. *
P
* * * * * * ¥ * * * * *

MEMANDORUM AND ORDER

On January 12, 2026, the Court granted the motion of Ms. Michele Harper to withdraw as ,
counsel for the Defendant-Nurses, (“the Nurses”) in this matter because Ms. Harper’s
representation of the Nurses was compromised by a non-waivable conflict of interest. (ECF No.
99.) The Court vacated the trial date (originally set for this month), noted Ms. Harper’s
withdrawal, and urged the Nurses to engage new counsel. (/d.) All of the Nurses except for Nurse
Monahan have now retained new counsel.!

On February 19, the Court met in a conference call with new defense counsel as well as
Plaintiffs’ counsel to schedule farther proceedings in the case. Defense counsel noted that Ms.
Harper had not retained any experts for trial, nor had she filed any dispositive motions on behalf
of the Nurses. Thus, defense counsel requested that the Court reopen the discovery period to allow

for the retention of experts and that the Court permit defense counsel to file pretrial dispositive

! The Court notes that attorney Nicholas Daetwyler is still listed on the docket as representing Nurse Monahan.
However, Mr. Daetwyler works at the same law firm as Ms. Harper and did not appear on the February 19 conference
call, If Mr, Daetwyler wishes to withdraw as counsel, he must file a motion to that effect. But, as of now, he remains
Nurse Monahan’s attorney of record, and he is expected to discharge the obligations and responsibilities of that role.
Unless and until he withdraws, the Court assumes that somehow his representation is conflict-free,

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 1:22-cv-02446-JKB Document107 Filed02/24/26 Page2of5

motions. Plaintiffs’ counsel opposed both of these requests.

The Nurses will not be permitted to re-litigate this case in its entirety merely because they
now have new counsel. However, as the Court previously explained, “the imperative is to try a
case on its merits, with counsel, before a jury of one’s peers.” (ECF No. 99 at 2 (citing Perttu v.
Richards, 605 U.S. 460, 467 (2025)).) That is because, in our legal system, it is the critical task |
of the jury to “distill[] the essential truth from a raw mixture of circumstances.” Atl. Coast Line
R. Co. v. Truett, 249 F.2d 215, 217 (4th Cir. 1957). Here, that mixture would be incomplete
without expert.testimony. A central issue in the case will be how to evaluate the actions of the
Nurses in their professional capacities. Expert testimony will shed important light on this and will
be key to the jury performing its “truth-finding function.” See Hankerson v. North Carolina, 432
U.S. 233, 241 (1977); see also Sec, & Exch. Comm’n v. Jarkesy, 603 US. 109, 121 (2024). Thus,
the Court will reopen the discovery period for the limited purpose of allowing expert discovery.
However, as agreed by the parties, each Nurse will be permitted to retain only one expert,,not
more, Plaintiffs will also be allowed to retain one expert.

While the Court will permit expert discovery, it will deny the Nurses’ request for leave to
file pretrial dispositive motions. The Nurses had the chance to file such motions previously, and
they did not take it. Allowing them to do so now would not aid the truth-seeking function of the
trial and would instead continue to delay Plaintiffs from receiving their day in court. Thus, the
request for leave to file pretrial dispositive motions will be denied.”

Because the Court is partially reopening discovery, all parties will incur substantially
greater litigation expenses. The Court will not impose those expenses on Plaintiffs or their counsel,

who bear no fault for the predicament presented here. Rather, as discussed during the conference

2 This does not include any motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which may be filed at any time.
See Fed, R, Civ, P. 12(h)@).

Case 1:22-cv-02446-JKB Document107 Filed 02/24/26 Page 3of5

call and agreed to by ali counsel present, Plaintiffs will be awarded their reasonable costs
associated with conducting discovery of the Nurses’ expert proof. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2\(C)
(requiring that additional reasonable litigation expenses be covered by the party that violates a
discovery scheduling order); Ballard v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP, No. 5:17-CV-03057, 2018 WL
4964361, at *3 (S.D.W. Va. Oct. 15, 2018) (reopening discovery—after a discovery violation—to
allow for a fairer trial but imposing the additional costs on the violating party asa sanction). This
includes reimbursement for the fees of the Nurses’ experts that will be charged during Plaintiffs’
depositions of these experts, and Plaintiffs’ reasonable legal fees associated with those depositions.
Plaintiffs shall submit their costs and expenses (as calculated above) to Defendants who shall
promptly pay the same or note their objections to the Court.

Based on the foregoing, the Court sets the following dates and deadlines for further

proceedings in this case:

April 20, 2026 Deadline for Defendants to disclose their experts and
produce expert reports to Plaintiffs.

May 20, 2026 Deadline for Plaintiffs to disclose their expert and
produce an expert report to Defendants.

May 27, 2026 Deadline for Defendants’ reply expert disclosures.

July 1, 2026 Deadline for all expert discovery, including depositions.

Deadline for Plaintiffs’ submission of costs to
Defendants.

Deadline for motions to be filed pursuant to Federal Rule

of Evidence 702.
July 22, 2026 Deadline for responses to Rule 702 motions.
_ July 29, 2026 Deadline for replies to responses to Rule 702 motions.
August 19, 2026 Deadline for filing motions in limine.

Deadline for receipt in chambers of draft pretrial order,

3

Case 1:22-cv-02446-JKB Document107 Filed 02/24/26 Page 4of5

August 24, 2026

August 26, 2026, 4:00 p.m.

August 31, 2026, 9:30 a.m.

proposed voir dire, proposed preliminary and final jury
instructions, and a proposed jury verdict form.

These are to be filed electronically and must also be
submitted via e-mail in Microsoft Word format to
chambers: MDD_JKBChambers@mdd.uscourts.gov.

Counsel shall meet and confer about these documents
and, to the fullest extent possible; make joint
submissions. Counsel shall identify, in supplemental
filings, any points of disagreement.

The. most recent revisions of the Court’s standard
preliminary and final jury instructions in civil casés are
available upon request to chambers. Counsel must use
these forms. ,

Deadline for filing responses to motions in limine.

Pretrial Conference, Courtroom 5A. AJ] counsel
participating at trial are required to be present; parties
need not be.2 The Court will address motions in limine
during this conference.

Begin Jury Trial, Courtroom 5A, scheduled for 2
weeks. The Court will not sit on Fridays or on Labor
Day.

Counsel shall appear in court at 9:15 a.m. on the first
day of trial to address miscellaneous matters with the
courtroom deputy clerk prior to the commencement of
jury selection.

Finally, this matter is REFERRED to a United States Magistrate Judge for further

settlement negotiations, to occur as soon as possible.

3 David Lane, counsel for Plaintiffs, may appear by phone, on the condition that co-counsel Andrew Freeman, who

will also participate at trial, will appear in person.

Case 1:22-cv-02446-JKB Document107 Filed 02/24/26 Page5of5

DATED this 24 day of February, 2026.

BY_JHE COURT:

oe Cie A

James K. Bredar
United States District Judge